
0A1895 



^ 



penmAlrfe* 
pH8J 



^ **" W^ SPEECH 

CopV ^ 

OP 



HOl^. LAZARUS W. POWELL, 

OF KENTUCKY, 



ON THE 



STATE OF THE UNION: 



DELIVERED 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 22, 1861. 




WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 

1861. 



MR. CRITTENDEN'S JOINT RESOLUTIONS 

Proposing certain nmeiulnients to the Constitution of the United States. 



Resolved by the Senate and Home of Representa-\ 
lives cf Ike Llniled States of .America in Congfess' 
assembled, {l\voi\u\-(\sx>i'b<H\) Houses coiiciiniii^,) I 
Tlial ihe following; articles be, and are hereliy, j 
pr(if)ostd and siilnniitcd as amendments to the ! 
Coiisiitution ot'ihe United Slates, whii-,!i sliall be - 
valid to all intents and purposey as part of said 
Constitution, wlien rati fled by conventions of three ; 
fourtlis of the several Slates. 1 

Article 1. In all the territory of tlie United j 
Stales now lu'ld,orhereafteracq;iiied, situate north 
of laiilude .'JGO 30', slavery or involuntary servi- ; 
tude, except as a punislunent for crime, is prohib- ! 
ited while such territory shall remain under terri- 1 
torial e^overnment. In all the territory now held, 
or hereafter acquired, south of saiil line of latitude, 
slavery of the African race is hereby recognized 
as existing, and shall not be interfered with by 
Congress, but shall be protected as property by 
all the dejiartments of the territorial government 
duriiiij its continuance; and when any Territory, 
iDrih or south of said line, within such bounda- 
ries as Congress may ju-escribe, sliall contain the 
population requisite for a member of Congress, 
according to the then Federal ratio of representa- 
tion of the people of the United Slates, it shall, if 
its form of government be republican, be admit- 
ted into the Union on an equal fooling with the 
original Slates, with or witiiout slavery, as the 
constituiion of such new Stale may provide. 

Art. '2. Congress shall have no power to abol- 
ish slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdic- 
tion, and situate within the limits of States that 
permit the holding of slaves. 

Art. 3. Conjjress shall have no power toabol- 
ish slavery within the Disiricl of Columbia, so 
long as it exists in the adjoiiiing Slates of Vir- 
ginia and Maryland, or either, nor without the 
consent of the inhabitants, nor without just com- 
pensation first made to such owners of slaves as 
do not consent to such abolishment. Nor shall 
Consrress at any time prohibit officers of the Fed- 
eral (jovernment or members of Congress, whose 
duties require them to be in said District, from 
bringing with ihem their slaves and holding them 
as such'during the time their duties may require 
them to ninain tiiere.und afterwards taking tliem 
from the District. 

Art. 4. Congress sliall have no power to pro- 



hibit or hinder the transportation of slaves fron> 
one State to another, or to a Territory in which 
slaves are by law permitted to be held, whether 
that transportation be by land, navigable rivers, 
or by the sea. 

Art. 5. Thai, in addition to the provisions of 
the tliird paragraph of the second section of the 
fourth article of the Constitution of the United 
States, Congress shall have power to [)rovide by 
law,aed il shall be its duty so to provide, that the 
United States shall pay to the owner who shall 
apply for it, the full value of his fugitive slave, in 
ail eases, when the marshal, or other officer, whose 
duty it was to arrest said fugitive, was prevented 
from so doing by violence or intimidation, or 
when, after arrest, said fugitive was rescued by 
force, and the owner thereby prevented and ob- 
structed in the pursuit of his remedy for the re- 
covery of his fugitive slave, under the said clause 
of the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance 
thereof. And in all such cases, when the United 
States shall pay for such fugitive, they shall have 
the power to reimburse themselves by imposing 
and collecting a tax on the county or city in which 
said violence, intimidation, or rescue was commit- 
ted, equal in amount to the sum paid by them, with 
the addition of interest and the costs of collection; 
and the said county or city, after it has paid said 
amount to the United States, may, for its indem- 
nity, sue and recover from the wrong-doers, or 
rescuers, by whom the owner was j^revented from 
the recovery of his fugitive slave, in like manner 
as the owner himself might have sued and recov- 
ered. 

Art. 6. No future amendment of the Constitu- 
tion shall affect the five preceding articles, nor the 
third paragraph of the second section of the first 
article of the Constitution, nor the third paragraph 
of the secojid section of tlie fdurtli article of said 
Constituiion; and no amendment shall be made 
to the Consliiulion which will authorize or give 
to Congress any power to abolish or interfere 
v/ith slavery in any of the States by whose laws 
it is or may be allowed or permilted. 

Art. 7. Sec. 1. The elective franchise and the 
right to hold office, whether Federal, State, terri- 
torial, or municipal, shall not be exercised by 
persons who are, in whole or in part, of the 
African race. 



AMENDMENTS 



Intended to be propo.sed by Mr. Puwei.i. to the 
certain amendments to the Const! 

Al llio end ol" article four, insert tin? followliig: 

Hut tlip Alriran slave trade uliall lie lori-ver Huppressi-d, i 
and it ."liall 1>'' Hie duly of Cotiynss lo riiaki' sucli laws i\n \ 
vliall 111- ni-ccssary and eOVctual to prrvcnl tin- iiiinratinii : 
or liiiportalioii ol'slaven, or pcr.-'oiis owin-; servu'cor Inlior, ] 
Into Hie UiiiU'd .Stiu-H from any foroipii country, pluof, or | 
jurlfdlrllon wlialever. | 

IiiKert the following at additional scctlonH to article four, | 
pajfc 4 : I 

f'KC. 2. That pcrmns roinniitlins orlinn» ag:ilii!it tlio | 
rlKlu- oftlio-r wlio liolil pcriioin to k.tvIc'i? or lalior in one , 
Stale, and fleelnj! to nnoilier. uliall l)e d>liver<d up in tlie 



joint resolution of Mr. Crittekui:\', " proposing 
tuiion of the United Stales," viz: 
saTMO nianii(!ras prrsons connniltinc other crimes ; and that 
tlie laws of the Stale iVoni which .-ucli persons flee shall be 
I the test ol rriiniiuillty. 

I Skc. ."). Congress shall passetlieirnt law.«i for the punish- 
t nient of all persons in any of tlie Slates who shall in any 
, iiianniT aid and abet invasion or insurrection in any otiier 
' State, or coniinit any other act tending to disturb the tian- 
I qnillity of its peojile'or governim'nt of any other State. 

' NoTK.— On motion of Mr. Powell, (with the consent of 
Mr. Crittkndkn.) the tlr>it arilele was nmi'iided by the 
Senate so as lo make it apply lo territor) lii-ri'aftcr acquired 

' Koutli of parallel of latitude ;)(>" 30'. 



SPEECH. 



The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, having re- 
sumed the consideration of tlie joint resolution proposing 
certain amendments to the Constitution of Uie United 
States — 

Mr. POWELL said: 

Mr. President: From tlie commencement of 
this session, I have steadily advocated every 
measure that has been proposed wliich, in my 
judgment, was calculated to restore peace to this 
distracted country. I heartily desire the preser- 
vation of this system of Government, and that the 
constitutional Union of our fathers may be trans- 
mitted to those who are to come after us. It lias 
been well said, by more Senators than one, that 
the Union could not be saved by eulogies. In that, 
I most heartily concur. I sliail indulge in no spe- 
cial eulogy on the Union. The rapid growth of 
our' country, the prosperity, contentment, and 
happiness of our people; our rapid advancement 
in agriculture, manufactures, commerce, art, sci- 
ence, in all its industrial pursuits, and in all the 
arts of peace, must be eulogy sufficient. I do not 
conceive, sir, that the difficulties by which we are 
now surrounded arise so much from a defect in 
cur system of Government, as fiom a wild, fan- 
atical spirit that seems for a time to have over- 
thrown the reasons of men, and jierverted that 
system. The Constitution, as interpreted by the 
Republican party, instead of being a shield for 
our defense, is used as an instrument for the de- 
struction of our rights of property in the common, 
territory of the Union. For the first forty years 
of our Government, the rights of our people were 
■everywhere maintained under the Constitutinn. 
Indeed, in those earlier and better days of the 
Hepublic, so light were the exactions the Govern- 



ment made on the people, and so ample the pro- 
tection it afforded to persons and property every- 
where, that we scarcely knew we had a Govern- 
ment, save from the benefits we enjoyed. And 
such now, sir, would be the happy condition of 
the country if all political parties would in good 
faith execute the Constitution as it has been ex- 
pounded by the Supreme Court of the United 
States. 

My distinguished and learned friend from Texas 
[Mr. Wigfall] the other day twitted me with 
being a Union-saver. I will say to that distin- 
guished Senator that if I could be in the slightest 
degree instrumental in arresting the dangers by 
which we are surrounded, in restoring peace, har- 
mony, and unity to this distracted people, and in 
transmitting to those who are to come after us the 
constitutional Union of our fathers, I would be 
most happy. I would desire no honor more 
permanent or lasting. I would covet no brighter 
or more enduring fame. 

I announced to the Senate at the commence- 
ment of the session that, in my opinion, unequiv- 
ocal constitutional guarantees were the only rem- 
edies that would save this Union from speedy 
dissolution. Events that have transpired since 
that time have confirmed me in that belief. I then 
declared that delay in a crisis like this was equiv- 
alent to destruction. It now looks to me more 
like criminality. In the presence of the moment- 
ous events by which we are surrounded, we 
should act promptly on the various propositions 
for adjustment before the Senate. If we are un- 
able to agree upon a plan of adjustment, let the 
country know it. I confess that the action of Sen- 
ators on the committee of thirteen, and the dec- 



larations of Senators on this floor, have caused 
me to have but little iiope that Congress will do 
anything that will restore harmony to our dis- 
tracted country. 

Without further preface, Mr. President, I will 
proceed at once to the consideration of the amend- 
ments proposed to the Constitution by my dis- 
tinguished colleague. I shall endeavor briefly to 
meet the objections made to them, and to state to 
the Senate the reasons why 1 think they should 
be adopted by gentlemen on both sides of this 
Chamber. If adopted, I believe they would re- 
store peace to this country. The first article is 
the one that I apprehend will be most difiicult of 
solution. It is the one touching the Territories of 
the United States, and African slavery in those 
Territories. This article proposes that — 

In all territory of the United Stntes, now held or hereafter 
acquired, situate north of latitude 36° 30, slavery or invol- 
untary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, is pro- 
hibited while such territory shall remain under territorial 



free and the slave States of this Union. When 
the peace of 1783 was made, the Slates north of 
Mason and Dixon's line had an area of one hun- 
dred and sixty-four thousand square miles. The 
States south of that line had an area of six hun- 
dred thousand square miles. In 1787, Virginia 
ceded the vast territory northwest of the Ohio to- 
the United States, and slavery or involuntary ser- 
vitude was prohibited therein. That being taken 
from the territory then belonging to the slave 
States, gave the ascendency to the free States. By 
the acquisition of Louisiana, of Florida, and of 
Texas, the area of the slave States was greatly in- 
I creased. The area of the free and slave Slates, as 
I at present organized, is about the same, each con- 
taining about eig;ht hundred and sixty thousand 
' square miles. What is the extent of the territory 
about which we are now contending? I have an 
I accurate tabular statement furnished me by the 
j Commissioner of the General Land Office, show- 
ing the area in square miles of the part north and 



government. In all the territory, now held or hereafter to I ^^e part SOUth of the parallel of 36° 30' north lat- 

be acquired, south of said line of latitude, slavery of the | j^^j^. 

African race is hereby recognized as existing, and shall not 

be interfered with by Congress ; but shall be protected as ! 

property by all the departments of the territorial government | 
during its continuance ; and when any territory, nortn or ] 
Fouth of said line, within such boundaries as Congress may 
prescribe, shall contain the population requisite for a mem- 
ber of Congress, accordinij to the then Federal ratio of rep- 
resentation of the people of the United States, it shall, if 
Its form of government he rejjublican, be admitted into the 
Union on an equal footing with the original States, witfi or 



Statement of the surface of each Territoi-y in the 
United States, shoicing the part north and the part 
south of the parallel of 36° 30' north latitude. 



Territoi^-. 



Whole 
surface. 



North South 

of parallel of parallel 

36° 30'. 36° 30'. 



without slavery, as the constitutionof such new State may 
provide. 

In proceeding to the discussion of liiis propo- 
sition, I would ask if the disposition it proposes 
to make of the territories of the Union is not just 
and equitable to the free States.' It is admitted 
by all that the territories of the Union are the 
common property of the people of all the States. 
If acquired by purchase, they were bought out of 
the common fund of all the people. If acquired 
by conquest, every part of the country contrib- 



Kansas 

Nebraska 

jVIiniiesola 

Washington... 
New Mexico.. 

Utah 

Indian 



Sq. miles. 
126.-283 
342,438 

81,960 
193,071 
256,309 
220.196 

67,020 



So. miles. 
126,283 
342,4.38 

81,960 
193,071 

40,629 
220,196 

16,730 



Sq. miles. 



215,680 
50,290 



1,287,277 1,021,307 



265,970 



We have now in the territories of the United 
States one million two hundred and eighty-seven 
thousand two hundred and .seventy-seven square 
miles. North of the line proposed to be estab- 
lished by this amendment, there are one million 
utedTt"3lh"are'ofthe''menand treasure that carried! twenty-one thousand three hundred and seven 
on the war. So far as a very large portion of these j square miles; south of that line there are only 
territories is concerned— that which was acquired | two hundred and sixty-five thousand nme hun- 
from Mexico— the gallant Slate that I have the dred and seventy square miles. Thus you see, 
honor in part to represent contributed three limes that under and by virtue of this article, should 
more men than all New England. I suppose that I it be adopted , the North will get nearly four times 
arose from the fact that it was nearer the seat of ] as much territory as the South; and while they 

|!get nearly four times in quantity, they will get 
"*" On the subject of the division of the territories, || more than ten limes in value;for it is well-known 
I will state a f..-w historical facts, which will show that all the rich territory of Kansas, of Nebraska, 
how the territories have been divided between the I! and all the land embraced m the terrUories that 



•^f^"^ e>mf~^-'^^ 



are watered by the Mississippi and Missouri rivers 
and their tributaries, and tlie land in Washington 
Territory, bounded by the Pacific, goes to the 
North, while there is given to the South the arid, 
barren Territory of New Mexico, containing very 
little fertile land and utterly destitute of navigable 
rivers. 

By reference to the tabular statement just read, 
I find that forty thousand six hundred and twenty- 
nine square miles of the Territory of New Mexico 
^ies north of latitude 36° 30'. So far, then, from 
increasing the area of slave territory, it is dimin- 
ished forty thousand six hundred and twenty-nine 
square miles. The North gains that much by the 
adoption of this article, for it is well known that 
slavery exists and is recognized and protected by 
law in New Mexico. Then, by the adoption of 
this article, we do not alter the status of slavery 
upon a foot of the territory of the United States 
south of the parallel 36° 30'; but we absolutely 
surrender forty thousand six hundred and twenty- 
nine square miles of slave territory — an area almost 
as great as the empire State of New York — to the 
North. 

It will be seen, by reference to the tabular state- 
ment heretofore read, that fifty thousand two 
hundred and ninety square miles of the Territory 
estimated as lying south of the parallel 36° 30' is 
embraced in the Indian territory. This territory 
has been set apart to the Indians who are becom- 
ing civilized. The United States have agreed, by 
treaty stipulations, that the land in the Indian 
territory shall in no future time, without the con- 
sent of the Indians, "be included within the ter- 
ritorial limitsor jurisdiction of any State or Terri- 
tory." Slavery, however, exists in the Indian 
territory, and is recognized and protected by law. 
When you deduct the fifty thousand two hundred 
and ninety square miles embraced in the Indian 
territory, we have only two hundred and fifteen 
thousand six hundred and eighty square miles 
south of the parallel of 36° 30' which would be 
subject to occupancy by the South with their prop- 
erty, if this amendment to the Constitution were 
adopted. 

This article has been objected to because it 
applies to after-acquired territory. I think it is 
eminently proper that it should apply to after- 
acquired territory. Senator^, if we settle this 
matter at all, let us do it in such a manner as will 
quiet it forever. Let us put this vexed territorial 
and negro question, so far as the Territories of the 
Confederacy are concerned, forever without these 



Halls. Any other adjustment would be idle, futile, 
and unwise. For forty years, this question has 
agitated and harassed the people of this country. 
In 1820, in the difficulties that grew out of the 
admission of Missouri, it deeply agitated the pub- 
lic mind and threatened the disruption of the Gov- 
ernment. Again, in 1850, we were as deeply agi- 
tated from the same cause. And why? Because 
the compromises of that day did not go to the 
root of the evil. If constitutional amendments, 
instead of statutes, had been resorted to in 1820, 
or in 1850, we would not now be surrounded by 
difficulties that threaten to disrupt and forever 
destroy the Government and ingulf us all in a 
common ruin. 

It has been stated that the application of this 
article to after-acquired territory would create a 
desire on the part of the southern people to iilli- 
buster south, and to absorb Mexico, seize the 
Island of Cuba, and other regions south, and 
bring them ultimately into the Union as slave 
States. Senators, allow me, with great deference, 
to say that that position is not well taken. How 
do you acquire territory .' You can only do it 
under our system of Government in two modes — 
by the admission of new States by Congress, or 
by treaty. I ask you if the South has the power 
to admit new States into this Union without the 
concurrence and the consent of the Representa- 
tives of the North ? You now have, in this Cham- 
ber, six majority from the free States. Ere long, 
perhaps in less than three days, you will have 
eight, by the admission of Kansas ; and soon after, 
Nebraska,Washington, and other Territories, will 
be admitted as free States, which will increase 
your majority. There is no Territory south out of 
which we could possibly form more than one or 
two slave States. While you have a majority here 
that would prevent the admission of a new State 
without your assent, you have, in the other branch 
of Congress, a majority now of over fifty from 
the free States; and when the apportionment shall 
come to be made under the census of 1860, your 
majority in that branch will be greatly increased. 
Could we acquire territory by treaty without your 
consent .' Why, sir, you know that every treaty 
must be confirmed by two thirds of the Senate. 
You have a majority now of six; and is there any 
danger that we shall acquire future territory by a 
vote of two thirds of this Senate, unless it meet 
the approbation of our brethren of the North.' 
Certainly not. That objection, then, as I before 
said, I hold to be badly taken. It is really worth- 



6 



less. When properly ronsidiTcd, it amounts to 
nothing. 

It is objected to beciiiise it recognizes slavery. 
I conceive tlial that objection is equally untenable; 
for I hold that the prescntConstitution recognizes 
that institution. It is a fact that is indisputable, 
that under the law of nations, at the time of the 
formation of this Government, slaves were recog- 
nized as property throughout Christendom. All 
the great Powers held slave colonies, to wit: 
France, Spain, and England. Upon that subject 
I have a dccisii^n of liie High Court of Admiralty, 
pronounced by Sir William Scott, that I think is 
conclusive. I will ask my friend from Missouri 
to read it. 

Mr. SUMNER. What i.s the name of the case ? 

Mr. POWELL. It is the case of Le Louis, 2 
Dodson. The court, speaking of slavery and the 
slave trade, said. 

Mr. GREEN read, as follows: 

'• It [the court] niusl look to the legal slamlard of iniiial- 
ity ; and upon a question ot'ihis nature, thiil standard must 
be found in the law of nations, as fixed and evidiTiced by 
general and ancient and admitted practice, hy treaties, and 
by llie (jeneral tenor of the laws and ordinanccr:, and the 
formal transactions of civilized States ; and looking to those 
authorities, I find aditticulty in maintaining tliat the traffic 
ia legally criminal. 

" Lei me not be misunderstood, or misrepresented, as a 
professed ajiologlsl for thi.s practice, when I state facts 
which no man can deny ; that personal slavery arising out 
of forcible captivity is coeval with the earliest periods of 
Uie history of mankind; that it is found existing — and, as 
far as appears, without animadversion— in the earliestand 
most authentic records of the human race; that it is rec- 
ognized by the codes of the mo.<t p(di>h(il nations of an- 
tiquity ; that, undi.'r the light of Christia»ity itself, the pos- 
8ef!!iiou of persons so acquired has been in every civilized 
country invested with the character of property, and se- 
cured as such by all the protections of law ; that solemn 
treatiirs have been framed and national monopolies eagerly 
sought, to facilitate and extend the conuncrce In this as- 
gerted property : and all this, with all the sanctions of law, 
public atid municipal, and without any opposition, except 
the protests of a lew private moralists, little heard and less 
attended to, in every country, till within these very few 
years, in litis particular country. Jf the matter rested here, 
I fear It would have been deemed a ino.sl extravagant as- 
sumption in any court of the law of natiorm to pronounce 
that Uiis practice, the tolerated, the approved, the encour- 
aged object of law, ever since man became subject to law, 
was prohibited by that law, and was legally criminal. I!ul 
the mailer does not rest lieri'. Within these few yi'ars a 
considiriilile change of opinion has taken plaice, pnrtlcu 
larly in this country. Kormal declarations have bei-n made, 
and law enacted in reprobation of this practice ; and pains, 
ably and zealously conducted, have been taken to induce 
other countries to follow the example, but al present with 
InsufUclenl effect; for there are nations wiiich a<lliere to 
the practice under all the encouragement which llnlrown 



laws can give it. What is the doctrine of our courts, of the 
law of nations, relative to them i" Why, that their practice 
is to be respected; that their slaves, if taken, are to be 
restored to them; and if not taken under innocent mistake, 
are to be restored with cost-; and dannges. All this, surely, 
upon the grouuil that such conduct on the part of any State 
is no departure from the law of nations ; because if it were, 
no such respect could be allowed to it upon an exemption 
of its own making, for no nation can privilege itself to com- 
mit a crime against the law of nation? by a mere munici- 
pal regulation of its own. And if our understanding and 
administration of the law of nations be, that every nation,^ 
iirde|)cndeutly of treaties, retains a legal right to carry on this 
traffic, and thattlie trade carried on under tliat authority is 
to be respected by all trihunals, foreign as well as domes- 
tic, it is not easy to find any consistent grounds on which 
to maintain that the traffic, acc<irding to our views of that 
law, is criminal." — English Jidmir<dt\j Reports, vol. 2. pp. 
250, 251. 

Mr. POWELL. Upon the proposition stated, 
that authority is too clear and explicit to need 
comment. I have another case in the King's 
Bench, decided in 1820, and reported in the third 
volume of Barnwell and Aldorson's Reports — the 
case of Madi-azo vs. Willes. In that case, Mr. 
.Tuslicc Best said: 

" It is clear from these authorities that the slave trade 
was not condemned by the law of nations." — 3 Barnwell 
and JiUlcrson, p. 359. 

It is clear, then. Senators, upon the authorities 
I have adduced — and I could have had abundant 
authority from the elementary books, if I hud 
chosen to refer to them, but I pi-eferred to present 
the adjudications of the law of nations from the 
courts of Great Britain, one opinion delivered in 
1817, and the other in 1820 — that the condition oi 
slavery was recognized by English courts. 

At the time of the formation of this Govern- 
ment, all the colonies recognized property in 
slaves, and treated them as articles of commerce 
and merchandise. In the debate in the conven- 
tion which formed the Articles of Confederation, 
yriu will find that property in slaves was clearly 
and explicitly recognized. In the debates in the 
convention that formed the pix'sent Constitution, 
Mr. Elbridge Gerry, a delegate from Massachu- 
setts, and others, clearly and distinctly stated that 
slaves were property. In the Constitution itself, 
property in slaves is most clearly recognized, not 
only in that clause which declares that " no per- 
son held to service or labor in one State under 
the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in 
consequence of any law or regulation therein, be 
discharged from such service or labor, but shall 
be delivered up on claim of the parly to whom 
such service or labor may be due," but in that 
other clause of the Constitution which declared 



that the slave trade should not be prohibited 
by Congress for twenty years, clearly treating 
slaves as pcoperty, as articles of commerce and 
traffic; and allow me to say that that clause was 
put in the Constitution by the vote of Massachu- 
setts, with Carolina and Georgia, and against the 
earnest protest of Virginia. At that time our 
Massachusetts friends did not think there was no 
property in slaves. When it comported with 
their interest, they strenuously contended that the 
right to traffic in them should be allowed for 
twenty years, and that Congress should not pro- 
hibit it. Tlie Constitution, in my judgment, is 
clear and explicit upon that point; and the view I 
take of it has certainly been held by the Supreme 
Court of the United Slates, and by the highest ju- 
dicial tribunals of many of the States of this Union. 
In the celebrated Dred Scott decision, Judge Ta- 
ney says: 

" Now, as we have already said in an earlier part of this 
opinion, upon a dilferent point, the right of property in a 
slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in tlie Constitu- 
tion. Tin; right to traffic in it, like an ordinary article of 
merchandise and property, was guarantied to the citizens 
of the United Status, in every State that might desire it, 
for twenty years. And the Government, in express terms, 
is pledged to protect it in all future time, if the slave es- 
capes from his owner. This is done in plain words — too 
plain to be misunderstood. And no word can be found in 
the Constitution which gives Congress a greater power 
over slave property, or which entitles property of that kind 
to less protection, than property of any other description. 
The only power conferred is tlie power coupled with the 
duty of guarding and protecting the owner in his rights." 

Could language be more explicit.' If the Con- 
stitution is as it has been expounded by the most 
august Judicial tribunal in the land, then the arti- 
cle which is now under consideration does not 
change the present Constitution so far as it relates 
to the recognition of property in slaves. I have a 
furtl^er authority on the subject. In the second 
volume of Pickering's Ma.ssachusetts Reports, in 
the case of the Commonwealth vs. Griffith, Chief 
Justice Parker says, speaking of the Constitution 
of the United States: 

" Tliat instrument was a compromise. It was a compact 
by which nil are bound. We are to consider, then, what 
was tiie intention of the Constitution. The words of it 
were used out of delicacy, so as not to offend some in the 
convention whose feelings were abhorrent to slavery ; but 
we there entered into an agreement that slaves should be 
considered as property. Slavery would still have continued 
if no Constitution had been made." — Pickering-s Reports. 
vol. 2, p. 19. 

Chief Justice Parker declares, as -explicitly as 
it is possible for him to do, that slaves, under the 
Constitution of the United States, were consid- 
ered as property. The Federalist, I believe, has 
been held, by all men of all parties, to be a most | 
&ithful exposition of the Constitution by those j 
who formed it. In No. 54 of the Federalist, writ-i 



ten by Mr. Madison, whose authority is often 

quoted to prove that the Constitution does not 

recognize slavery, I find this: 

"The Federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great 
propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them in 
the mixed character of persons and of property." 

The authorities I have adduced, when taken 
in connection with the plain and explicit declara- 
tions of the Constitution, can leave no doubt that 
slaves are recognized as property in the Consti- 
tution. Congress has, on more occasions than 
one, recognized property in slaves. By a law of 
the United States, approved 2d March , 1807, slaves 
are recognized as property;and tiie transportation 
of such property, in vessels of the United States 
sailing coastwise, is regulated, and the protection 
of our flag given to it; and there are millions of 
slave property now held by the people in the 
southern States, acquired through the United 
States, having been sold under the Federal laws, 
for debts due the United States. In the treaty of 
peace, signed at Paris in 1782, property in slaves 
was distinctly recognized, and that treaty was 
signed by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and 
John Jay, and other distinguished men. The 
seventh article of the treaty is as follows: 

Proiisioiial Articles between the United Stales of America 
and his Britannic Majesttj. 
Agreed upon liy and between Richard Oswald, esquire, 
the commissioner of his Britannic Majesty, for treating of 
peace vvitli the commissioners of tlie United States ol Amer- 
ica, in behalf of his said Majesty, on one part, and John 
Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John" Jay, and Henry Laurens, 
four of the coinmissioncrs of the said States, &c. 

Art. VII. * * * * All prisoners on both 
sides shall be setat liberty, and his Britannic Majesty, with 
all convenient speed, and without causing any destruction, 
or c.trrying away any negroes or oJAerTJrojicr' ;/of the Amer- 
ican inhabitants, withdraw all his armies, garrisons, and 
fleets from the said United States, ami from every fort, 
place, and harbor within the s.aine. 
Done at Paris, November 30, 1782. 

RICHAIU) OSWALD, [L. s.] 
JOHN ADAMS, [l. s.J 

B. FKANKHN, [l. s.] 

JOHN JAY, [L. s.] 

HENRY LAURENS, [t,. s.] 



Dejinitice Trcatij of Peace, between the United States of 
tSmerica and his Britannic Majesty. 
Art. VII. * * * * And his Britannic Ma- 
jesty shall, with all convenient speed, and without causing 
any destruction, or carrying away any veorocs or other 
properly of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his 
armies, &c. 
Done at Paris, September 3, 1783. 

D. HARTLEY, [l. s.] 
JOHN ADAMS, [l. s.] 
B. FKANKLIN, [l. s.] 
JOHN JAY. [l. s.J 

This article, clearly, plainly, and distinctly 
recognizes property in slaves; and the same recog- 
nition is in the treaty of Ghent, signed by John 
duincy Adams, Gallatin, Ptussell, Clay, and other 



8 



distinguished men. I will read tlic first article of 
the treaty: ; 

Treaty of Peace nnii .Imity bctn-cen his Britannic Majesty' 
and the Unilei States of America. 

(Ratified and confirmed by and with tlie advice and con- 
sent of the Senate, February 11, 1815.) 

Art. 1. * * * * shall be restored without 
delay, and without causing any destruction, and without 
carrying away any of the artillery or other public property : 
originally captured in the said forts or places, and which 
shall reniain therein upon the exchange of the ratifications 
of this treaty, or any slaees or other private property. 

Done, in triplicate, at Ghent, December 24, 1814. 

G.\MBRIE, [L. s.] 
HKNRY COULRURN, [l. s.] 
WILLIAM ADAMS, [l. s.] 
JOHN a. ADAMS, [l. s.] 
J. A. BAYARD, [l. s.] 
H. CLAY, [L. s.] 

JONA. RUSSELL, [l. s.] 
ALBERT GALLATIN, [L. s.] 

These treaties were signed by our wisest and 
most illustrious men, several of whom assisted in 
forming this Government, and were among the 
ablest expounders of the Constitution; they, I 
suppose, had as much knowledge of what consti- 
tuted property as their descendants. The treaty 
of Paris was ratified by the Continental Congress; 
the treaty of Ghent by the Senate of the United 
States. There wasnotan objection in either body 
to the designation of slaves as property. 

Another objection urged against this article is, 
that it declares that the Government shall give 
protection to slave property in the Territories. I 
scarcely know how to meet this objection. I had 
supposed that it was an axiomatic truth in gov- 
ernmental science, that all Governments were 
formed for the purpose of protecting the people 
governed, in their property and their persons; and 
that whenever a Government ceases to perform this 
high function, it is a failure. I did not expect to 
meet such an objection as this in the Senate. It 
is a case too plain for argument. Slaves are prop- 
. ecty, and are recognized as such by the Consti- 
tution, laws, and treaties of the United States, as 
I have clearly shown. Why should not the com- 
mon Government give protection to this species 
of property.' I have always supposed that pro- 
tection is the price of allegiance. We ask noth- 
ing. Senators, touching this territory, that is not 
riglit. You all admit that it is common territory. 
We are willing to give you much the larger por- 
tion, nearly four times as much as we a.sk for 
ourselves; and yet it seems you are not satisfied. 
You admit that the territory is common property. 
Then, is it right, or just, or equitable, that you 
should take the whole, to the exclusion of your 
.southern brethren .' Certainly not. There is not 
a judicial tribunal on earth, if it were applied to 



for a fair division, an honest partition of these 
Territories between the people of the North and 
the South, that would not give us twice as much 
as is conceded by this proposed amendment to the 
Constitution.' I remember that, when the Mis- 
souri compromise line was repealed, the Repub- 
licans everywhere sang peans to it. If you were 
in earnest in desiring the existence and continu- 
ance of that line, we offer it to you now, not as 
a statute subject to repeal, but as an irrevocable 
amendment to the Constitution ; and why not take 
it, ifyou were really in earnest when you protested 
so strongly against its repeal } 

Senators, the adoption of this article as part of 
the Constitution will not plant slavery in any Ter- 
ritory of the Union, unless the people there want 
it, for it applies only to the Territories during 
the territorial condition; and when they have 
population sufficient to entitle them, under the 
then existing ratio, to a Representative in Con- 
gress, they will have a right to come in as a State, 
with or without slavery, as they please. Thus, 
you see, the laws of climate, of production, and 
of interest, will ultimately govern the question. 
Adopt this amendment, and this vexed and agi- 
tating question will be forever banished from these 
Halls, and the time of the people 's Representatives 
will be devoted to other and more useful matters 
of legislation. My experience here has been a 
brief one. I have served in this body about eight 
months, and six months of that time have been 
devoted to the discussion of abstract theorems on 
this question of negro slavery as connected with 
the Territories of the United States. Is it not 
time that the subject should be banished from 
these Halls, and our attention given to more Hseful 
subjects of legislation ? These discussions have 
gone on to an interminable length, to the neglect of 
every great interest of the country. Our financial, 
our commercial, our internal and external affairs, 
require and imperiously demand our time, but it 
is not given to these great interests of the people. 
If you adopt this amendment, the guns of dema- 
gogues, north and south, will be spiked, and 
they will have no longer an opportunity to create 
sectional strife, and get into power by pandering 
to the depraved appetites of their sectional fol- 
lower.s. 

I do not believe that a more just settlement 
could ije made of the question than the one pro- 
posed by my colleague. If it be unjust to any, 
it i.s to the people of his o^vn section; certainly 
not to the North. While you. Senators from the 



9 



North, speak very often f aggressions that are 
made on your section, in truth you are very apt 
to get the larger share, as you do in this case. 
You have got it already; you will have it under 
this proposition; but for the sake of peace, for 
the sake of harmony, for the sake of transmit- 
ting to generations yet to come the institutions of 
our fathers, and to save the Union of the States, 
we are willing to yield to you more than your 
due, more than is your right. We do it in the 
spirit of a peace offering upon the altar of our 
country. And yet it seems to be spurned. We do 
not; ask as much by this article as we are entitled 
to under the Constitution as expounded by the 
Supreme Court; for the decision from which I 
read a moment ago declares that, under the Con- 
stitution of the United States, we have a right to 
go to all the Territories, and to carry with us our 
slave property, and to be protected in its enjoy- 
ment during the territorial existence; and that 
there is no power, either in the Congress of the 
nation, or in any other tribunal, to deprive us of 
that protection; and that the Government has the 
power under the Constitution, and it is its duty, 
to guard and to protect us in our right of prop- 
erty. By this amendment to the Constitution 
we yield our right to enter, with our slave prop- 
erty, all the Territory north of 36° 30', and we 
reserve to ourselves the right to occupy with our 
property the territory south of that parallel of 
latitude, which only secures to us the barren soil 
of New Mexico. 

I will briefly notice the other proposed amend- 
ments to the Constitution. The second article 
declares that Congress shall have no power to 
abolish slavery in places under its exclusive juris- 
diction and situate within the limits of States that 
permit the holding of slaves. I suppose, from the 
often-repeated declaration that I have heard from 
Senators on the other side of the Chamber, that 
they will not make serious objection to this; for 
they have frequently declared that they did not 
wish to interfere with slavery in the States where 
it exists. It is manifest that if they were to un- 
dertake, by an act of Congress, to abolish slavery 
in the forts, arsenals, and dock-yards of the Uni- 
ted States within the slave States, it would be not 
only a serious detriment to our interests, but a 
violation of the Constitution. It is right, then, 
that this provision should go into the Constitu- 
tion. Our people feel some alarm upon that sub- 
ject. This amendm^t would allay excitement 
and quiet their fears. 



The third proposed amendment is, that Con- 
gress shall not have power to abolish slavery in 
the District of Columbia so long as it exists in 
the States of Virginia and Maryland. This is a 
proposition that gentlemen on the other side of the 
Chamber certainly ought not seriously to object 
to, for the reasons I have assigned concerning the 
preceding -article, and for the additional reason 
that the abolition of slavery in this District would 
be a matter of deep moment to the existence of 
this institution in the States of Maryland and Vir- 
ginia. It would be virtually establishing a free 
State in their midst. It would be manifestly un- 
just to Virginia and Maryland that this District, 
which was ceded to the United States to be used 
as a capital for a common country, should be so 
controlled and governed as to endanger the do- 
mestic quiet and peace of those twT) States. 

The fourth article provides that Congress shall 
have no power to prohibit or hinder the trans- 
portation of slaves from one State to another, or 
to a Territory in which slaves are, by law, per- 
mitted to be held, whether that transportation be 
by land, by navigable rivers, or by sea. If Sen- 
ators are in earnest when they say it is not their 
purpose to interfere with slavery in the States 
where it exists, they certainly have no legitimate 
right to complain of this article. Our people have 
great uneasiness about these matters; and they 
desire that these guarantees should be put in the 
Constitution, and placed beyond the reach of ma- 
jorities. We think our interests and our safety 
imperiously demand it. 

To this article I have proposed three amend- 
ments which are before the Senate, and are accept- 
able to my colleague. I will consider them as part 
of the proposed plan of adjustment. The first is , 
that the African slave trade shall be forever sup- 
pressed; and it shall be the duty of Congress to 
make such laws as shall be necessary effectually 
to prevent the migration or importation of slaves, 
or persons owing service or labor, into the Uni- 
ted States from any foreign country, place, or 
jurisdiction whatever. I know that there is much 
uneasiness, or pretended uneasiness, in the north- 
ern mind, that it is the desire of the southern peo- 
ple to reopen the African slave trade. I am confi- 
dent that, without this provision, we could not do 
it, for the laws of the United States already de- 
clare it piracy, and you have a majority in both 
ends of this Capitol, and will forever have a ma- 
jority, and that of itself will prevent any reopen- 
ing in after time of the African slave trade; but 



10 



for fear the mind of Ihc people may be changed 
on this subject, for fear the soulliern cotton and 
en^arphmters may desire an importation of slaves 
from Africa, in order to enrich themselves by in- 
creasing their products, or that the cupidity of 
gentlemen of the North engaged in navigation may 
be excited, and lest ihey may wish again to enter 
into the slave trade, I desire to put this provision 
in the Constitution, which declares that the Afri- 
can slave trade shall be forever suppressed. That 
will forever quiet your apprehensions and uneasi- 
ness on this point. I do not believe that there is 
one man in ten thousand in the southern States 
who desires the reopening of the African slave 
trade. I have never heard a man in Kentucky 
declare in favor of it; and I think when yoii get 
further South, they arc few, indeed, who do not 
desire to prey^-nt that traffic forever. 

The second amendment which I propose is, that 
persoiis committing crimes against the rights of 
those who hold )}ersons to service or labor in any 
Slate, fleeing to another, shall be delivered up in 
the same manner as persons committing other 
crimes, and that the laws of the State from which 
Buch persons flee shall be the test of criminality. 
This amendment is intended to secure the arrest 
and di-livery of persons who steal slave property 
and flee to another State. Tliere is very great 
complaint against many of our sister States of the 
North, because of the non-fulfillment of this duty 
under the Constitution. We hold that, under the 
Constitution as it is, it is their duty to deliver up 
persons charged with the crime of slave-stealing 
who have fled to other States; but we know that 
the Governors of more than one of the free States 
have held diflferenily. It has been so held, I think, 
in New York, and certainly in Ohio and other 
States. I know that this is a matter of very deep 
and just complaint on the part of the people of 
Kentucky against the Slate ofOhio; and I am sure 
that honorable gentlemen do not wish to keep 
thieves in their midst. Good faith and comity, as 
well as constitutional obligations, require that such 
persona should be surrendered. This amend- 
ment would make cert^xin and plain a provision of 
Uie Constitution, which has been the subject of di- 
verse ccinstruction. It relates to a subject of great 
and vital interest to the people of the South; and 
none, I HU|>pc)sc, would object to it except those 
who would sanction the robbery of southern men 
of their property. Republican Senators have often 
— I believe uniliirmly — expressed iheirpondemna- 
tion of such infractions of our rights. Honorable 



gentlemen certainly do not desire to obstruct the 
execution of the laws against the rights of prop- 
erty in any State in the Union, by refusing to pro- 
vide a remedy to have delivered up the criminals, 
who have fled and taken refuge in their Slate's, for 
trial and punishment. I therefore trust that this 
amendment, so obviously just and necessary for 
the protection of the South against robbery and 
theft, may be adopted. 

The third amendment that I propose is, that 
Congress shall pass efficient laws for the punish- 
ment of all persons, in any of the States, who in any 
manner aid or abet invasion or insurrection in any 
other State, or do any other act tending to disturb 
the tranquillity of the people or Government of 
any other State. This provision seems to me to 
be eminently proper. It meets just such cases as 
the raid of John Brown into Virginia; and I be- 
lieve that that raid of John Brown was censured 
very generally, I do not know but unanimously, 
by Senators on the other side of the Chamber. If 
they conceive it wrong— and I dare say they are 
in earnest when they say so — why not pass laws 
to punish such crimes, and why not put this pro- 
vision in the Constitutio;}, and make it the im- 
perative duty of Congress to pass such laws ? My 
distinguished friend from Virginia, [Mr. Hun- 
ter,] who most eloquently and ably addressed 
the Senate a few days ago, declared that no State 
in the Union had passed laws to meet such a case. 
I find that the gallant State of New Jersey has 
passed a law which fully meets the case, and it 
afli'ords me pleasure so to announce. By an act 
of the Legislature of that State, approved March 
21, 18G0, New Jersey declared: 

'• I. Beit cnavtcdhythe Scnaleand GcncTalJls-iemhlyofthe 
State of Sew Jersey, That it" any person or persons slmll, 
williiii this Sut(!, get up or enter into any ronibinaiioii, 
or?nnir,:uion, or conspiracy, with tlie intent iind purpose of 
making or iiileiiiplin^to niakea liostile invasion ol'any ottier 
State or 'JVrritory ol" llie L/'nitod Slates, or sliall enpaje in 
pioiiins or oontrivin!; any sucli invasion, or slinll know- 
ingly furnish any money, arms, ammunition, or oUier means 
In aid of sucli olijccl, or shall, in any way, knowingly and 
willtully aid, abet, or c(mnsel any such comliinntion, or- 
gnl/.ation, or conspiracy, or any sucli liostile invasion, 
such person or persons shall be dec mod guilty of a liigli mis- 
dfuK-anor, and sliall, on conviction, be punished by line or 

I imprisonmi'nt at lianl labor, or botli ; the tine not to exceed 
.51,000, and the imprisonment not to e.vcceU the term of ten 

I yi-ars." 

! There are other provisions of this law that strike 
; ine as very }>roper; and it seems to me that if this 
aini'ndment lo iht; Constitution were passed, we 
could not do much b(,'tter than to copy this law of 
New JfTisey. 

The fifth article proposed by my colleague pro- 
vides that, in the event of a fugitive slave being 
rescued from the proper officer, tlie United States 



11 



shall pay to the owner the value of the slave; and 
then, that the United States shall have indemnity 
against tiie county or town in which the rescue 
took place; and that the county or city, for its in- 
demnity, may sue and recover the amount paid 
from the wrong-doer. There is no new principle 
involved in this. By an ancient statute of Eng- 
land, passed in the time of Edward I, the hundred 
was responsible for all robberies committed there- 
in, unless they arrested the felon. Corporate cities 
in this country have often been held responsible 
by law for property destroyed by mobs, upon the 
principle that it is the duty of a Government to 
give protection to property. My venerable friend 
from Rhode Island [Mr. Simmons] objected to this 
clause, because, he said, it could not be practically 
executed in Rhode Island , for the reason that they 
had no county officers there against whom the law 
could be enforced, so as to reach the county. If 
that be the fact, the honorable Senator should not 
object. If the people of Rhode Island should vio- 
late this provision, and there be no mode of exe- 
cuting the law against the counties and corpora- 
tions of that Slate, the people of his State would 
be exempt from the penalty. 

Mr. SIMMONS. We do not want any ex- 
emption. I merely made the suggestion because 
we want to obey the laws, like all other States. 

Mr. POWELL. I felt very confident that the 
venerable Senator did not want an exemption for 
his gallant little Slate of Rhode Island, for I do 
not believe the Senator would countenance for a 
moment, byword or act, any violation of the con- 
stitutional rights of the people of any parlor por- 
tion of this great country. 

The sixth article proposed by my colleague de- 
clares that no future amendment to the preceding 
articles shall be made, nor to the third paragraph 
of the second section of the first article of the 
Constitution, nor the third paragraph to the sec- 
ond section of the fourth article of the Constitu- 
tion; and that no amendment shall be made to the 
Constitution which will authorize or give to Con- 
gress any power to abolish or interfere with sla- 
very in any of the Statfes by whose laws it may 
be allowed or permitted. One of the paragraphs 
of the present Constitution, which it is declared 
shall not be repealed or altered, is the one relating 
to representation and direct taxes; and the other 
to the delivering up of fugitives from service or 
labor. The latter clause of this article, I suppose, 
will meet the coneurrence of gentlemen on the 
other side of the Chamber. The distinguished 



Senator from New York [Mr. Sewaud] not only 
proposed and voted for a similar proposition in 
the committee of thirteen, but he has since de- 
clared in the Senate that he was willing to vote 
for such an amendment to the Constitution; and 
I take it that the distinguished Senator's declara- 
tion is a clear index to what the gentlemen on that 
side of the Chamber will do. All the Republicans 
of the committee of thirteen voted in that com- 
mittee for the proposition of the Senator from 
New York, to which I have just alluded. 

There is a seventh article that I will notice very 
briefly. It is, that the elective franchise and the 
right to hold office, whether Federal, Slate, terri- 
torial, or municipal, shall not be exercised by per- 
sons who are in whole or in part of the African 
race. I have heard it announced more than once 
from distinguished gentlemen on the other side, 
that they are opposed to negro equality. If they 
are, why object to voting for this provision as a 
clause of the Constitution? This Government, 
is a Government of white men, made by white men 
for white men; and negroes should not be per- 
mitted to vote or hold office under it. If you are 
opposed. Senators, to negro equality, why not 
come up and vote for this article as an amendment 
to the Constitution? There certainly can be no 
impropriety in it, if you are opposed to negro 
equality; and I suppose you are, as you have so 
often declared it. 

We have been asked by many gentlemen, and 
especially by the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. Wade,] 
what we v/ant. He said he could see no cause of 
complaint; and he asked what they had done to 
alarm us. It is not my purpose to enter into any 
crimination and recrimination about the past; but 
I will btiefly stale some things that have been done. 
There have been bands organized in the free 
States for the purpose of robbing our people of 
their property. 

Mr. WADE. I wish the Senator would give 
us some proof of that. I should like to hear the 
proof of it. I have heard the general charge often 
enough. 

Mr. POWELL. Well, sir, I will give you a 
little proof from an Ohio man. It is a fact which 
I did not suppose the honorable Senator doubted, 
that such bands have been organized. 

Mr. WA DE. I do not believe a word of it. 

Mr. POWELL. Why, sir, it is a matter of 
daily announcement in the papers in the northern 
part of the gentleman 's Slate, that so many slaves 
arrived the night before by the way of the under- 



12 



ground railway. I am astonished that the Senator 
sliouid be ignorantof the facts that are announced 
almost daily in the political journals that advocate 
the doctrines of himself and his party. Thatsuch 
bands are organized we who live upon the border 
well know. I hold in my hand a letter, dated 
Washington, December 31, 1860, written by an 
honorable member of the other House, from Ohio, 
[Mr. Cox,] to a Mr. Converse, in which he says: 
" Kentucky is so unfortunate as to liave in lier midst 
$170,000,000 in slave property. Her Governor says she is 
losing at the rate of $200,000 per annum. I think if he 
could keep a conductor of the under-ground railroad for a 
year even, through my district, he would perhaps double 
tlie estimate. I was told last fall, by a respectable Repub- 
lican above Columbus, tliat they averaged through his 
neighborhood at least six runaway slaves per week, helped 
along by combinations of men, making a loss alone of some 
§30,000 per annum to somebody." 

" Organized bodies exist in the North to resist the en- 
forcement of the fugitive slave law ; and I am informed, by 
one who knows, that at Iberia there are seventy muskets 
in store for such purposes, with United Slates brands on 
Ihem.-' 

There is a distinct declaration of one of the 
gentleman's honorable colleagues in the House 
of Representatives, making the statement on the 
authority of a Republican whom he vouches to be 
highly respectable. I believe there are annually 
taken from Kentucky by this means some $400,000 
worth of our property. If the northern States 
were foreign States, this would be good cause 
of war, for there is no principle of international 
law better established than that every State is 
responsible for the acts of its people. If there 
were organized bands of men in the slave States 
going into the free States to abduct one, two, 
three, or four hundred thousand dollars' worth of 
their property a year, I would ask the honorable 
Senator if he would not think legislation was re- 
quired upon the part of the Government to pro- 
tect the property of the people of the free'States ? 
Would he not think, if these States were foreign, 
and not connected together by a common bond of 
union, thatsuch an infraction of their rights would 
be good cause of war.' It certainly would. 

But, Senators, that is not all the complaint we 
have. We know that the State Legislatures in 
many of the free States have passed laws aiding 
and abetting those persons who commit depreda- 
tions upon our property. They have passed 
laws in the shape of personal liberty bills by which 
they declare that our property, after it gets into 
their Stales, is no longer property. They have 
denounced harsh penalties of fine and imprison- 
ment upon our people who go there for the pur- 
pose of rcca|)turing their property. They have 
obstructed the execution of the fugitive slave law, 



: and have passed laws imposing harsh penalties 
of fine and imprisonment upon their magistrates 
and citizens who assist in the execution of the 
fugitive slave law — a law made in pursuance of 
the Federal Constitution. 

j Mr. WADE. Will the Senator tell me what 

[ State it is which has passed such laws as those 

i he now speaks of.' 

1 Mr. POWELL. Yes, sir. The State of Ver- 
mont, and some seven or eight other States of the 

[North, have passed such laws. 

Mr. WADE. That is indefinite. I want to 

know particularly. 

Mr. POWELL. Seven or eight northern States 

have passed such laws as I have indicated. The 

law of Vermont, passed in 1858, provides that — 

" Every person who may have been held as a slave, who 
shall come, or be brought, or be, in this State with the con- 
sent of his or her alleged master or mistress, or who shall 
come or be brought, or be in this State, shall be free.'" 

The Federal Constitiition says that such per- 
sons shall not be free, but shall be given up on 

[ demand of the owner-, the lawof Vermontdeclares 
they shall be free. 

j This law of Vermont further provides: 

" Sec. 7. Every person who shall hold, or attempt to hold, 
in this State, in slavery, or as a slave, any free person, in 
any form or for any time, however short, under the pretense 
that such person is or has been a slave, shall, on conviction 
thereot", be imprisoned in tlie State prison for a term not 
less than five years nor more than twenty years, and be 
fined not less ihan §1,000 nor more than $10,000." 

If a man pass through Vermont with bis slave, 
or should he go into that State and arrest his fugi- 
tive slave, he is subject, under this law, to con- 
finement in the penitentiary not less than five nor 
more than twenty years, and to a fine of not less 
than §1,000 nor more than $10,000. 

These laws have been read and commented on 
here at great length. I am astonished that the 
Senatorshould question theircxistence. It is a fact 
well known to the Senator that when evil-disposed 
persons from his own State have gone into Ken- 
tucky and committed these crimes, his Governor 
has refused to give them up. In that, the Con- 
stitution has been clearly violated. In some of 
the northern States they declare that when a fu- 
gitive gets there he is free, no longer a slave. I 
was pleased to find that the honorable Senator 
from New York the other day declared that those 

I persons, by fleeing hilo another State, did not 
cease to be bondmen, and that they ought to be 
delivered up. Wc know, however, that the fugi- 
tive slave law is not faithfully executed; we know 
that many of those Slates have passed laws to 

I hinder, nay, to prevent its execution. 



13 



Mr. WADE. Mr. President, I wish now spe- 
cifically to answer any charge 

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Polk in 
the chair.) Does the Senator from Kentucky give 
way to the Senator from Ohio ? 
Mr. POWELL. With great pleasure. 
Mr. WADE. I want to answer any charge 
which is made specifically against Ohio; and I 
want it specifically made, so that I can answer; 
because these general charges I have heard so long 
and so often that I am entirely sick of them. I 
want something that I can put my finger upon. 
If my State is delinquent in any of her duties, I 
want to know it; and I do not want it to rest in 
generalities, nor in hearsay. I do not want it to 
rest upon astatement that some Republican , whose 
name has not been given, said so to somebody 
else, making it come through two or three differ- 
ent sources before it comes to the Senator, and 
then proclaimed as a fact. I do not regard it as 
a fact at all. I know that such kind of evidence 
and such kind of rumors are totally unworthy to 
predicate any charge against a State or an individ- 
ual upon. Now, sir, when it is charged that we in 
the State of Ohio are delinquent in our duty, and 
are violating the Constitution of the United States, 
I want the Senator to point out wherein we do it, 
and to give us the evidence on which the charge 
is predicated. 

Mr. POWELL. I have given the Senator the 
evidence. It is a written statement of one of his 
own colleagues, made a few days ago. I gave to 
the Senator, not long since, a specific charge 
against the Governor of Ohio, that he had refused 
to deliver up a man indicted for slave-stealing in 
Kentucky, on the ground that it was not an of- 
fense in Ohio, or under the common law, to steal 
a slave. If that is not specific, I despair of making 
anything specific. An organized armed body of 
anti-slavery fanatics from the North, evidently 
aided and abetted by abolition societies, invaded 
the soil of Virginia, and in the dead hour of night 
assaulted and murdered the peaceful citizens of 
an interior village. Abolitionists from the free 
States have invaded and laid waste the border of 
Texas; burned the houses of the people; stolen 
and destroyed their property ; poisoned their wells ; 
and destroyed by fire villages and towns. 

These are not the only grounds of apprehen- 
sion that we have; for we find that the Republi- 
can party have elected a President upon a plat- 
form that virtually outlaws our property, and 
places our institutions under the ban of the em- 



pire. I will read one of the clauses in that plat- 
form: 

"That the normal condition of the territory of tlie Uni- 
ted Slates is tliat of freedom; that as our republican fathers, 
when they had abolished slavery in our national tfirritory, 
ordained that no person should be deprived of life, liberty, 
or property, without due process of law, it becomes our 
duty, by congressional legislation, whenever such legisla- 
tion becomes necessary, to maintaui this provision of the 
Constitution against all attempts to violate it ; and we deny 
the authority of Congress, of a Territorial Legislature, of 
any individual or association of individuals, to give legal 
existence to slavery in any Territory of the United States." 

That is an explicit declaration that we shall not 
enjoy any portion of the common territory with 
our property. There you declare the treaty made 
with France in 1803, by which Louisiana was 
acquired, the treaty made with Spain in 1819, by 
which Florida i^as acquired, by which treaties 
property was protected in those Territories, and 
the congressional and territorial laws by which 
slavery was allowed and protected in those and 
other Territories, were null, void, and no law. 
You place the Chicago platform above treaties 
and the laws of the United States, and the laws 
of the Territories, and the decisions of the Su- 
preme Court of the United States. You have 
elected a gentleman President of the United States 
by a purely sectional vote, who has declared that 
this Union cannot exist half slave and half free-, 
and who has declared that, notwithstanding the 
decision of the Supreme Court, he would vote to 
prohibit slavery in a new Territory. Mr. Lin- 
coln, in a speech made at Chicago, on the 10th of 
July, 1858, said: 

" If I were in Congress, and a vote should come up 
whether slavery should "be prohibited in a new Territory, 
in spite of the bred Scott decision, I would vote that it 
should." 

The Supreme Court of the United States has 
declared that under the Constitution of the Uni- 
ted States we have a common right of property in 
the Territories, and have a right to go there with 
our slaves; and that it is the duty of the Govern- 
ment to guard and protect us in our rights. Mr. 
Lincoln says that, notwithstanding that decision, 
he would, if in Congress, vote against allowing 
us to go to the Territories with our slaves. It is 
the avowed policy of the Republican party to re- 
strict slavery to its present limits. Their object 
is to use the Federal Government to carry out a 
line of policy the ultimate object of which is the 
extinction of slavery in the States south as well as 
north. This policy was unequivocally announced 
by Mr. Lincoln, in a speech delivered at Jones- 
boro, on the 15th of September', 1858. Mr. Lin- 
coln, speaking of slavery, said: 

"All r have asked or desired anywhere is, that it should 
be placed back again upon the basis that the fathers of the 



14 



Government nrizinally pinc-od it upon. I have no doubt 
tlint it would bncoiiii' extinct, Pir nil time to cnnir, if we 
but ri-,idi>pti'd tlic policy ol" the lathers l>y n-striclin'; it Hi 
the limit;; it hasalready covered— restricting it 1'roni the new 
Territories." 

The policy is to prohibit shivery in all the 
Territories, atitl to surround the slave Slates with 
" abolition Slates, and thu.s confine the institution 
within siicii narrow limits that, when the nuinber 
increases beyond the capacity of the soil to raise 
food for their subsistence, the institution must 
end in starvation, colonization, or servile insur- 
rection." 

Senators, are not these sufficient causes why 
the southern people should be seized with alarm 
for their domestic peace and security.' The peo- 
ple of the southern States have gfe, 000, 000, 000 of 
slave property. The institution is indissi.lubiy 
interwoven with their social sy.stem. The people 
of the South would be stupid indeed if they did 
not see in all tliis a fixed design and purpose ulti- 
mately to overthrow and destroy their domestic 
institutions upon which their very existence de- 
pends. Should it, then, be a matter of surprise 
or astonishment that they should promptly meet 
the danger by which they are threatened, by de- 
manding explicit constitutional guarantees as a 
security for the future.' 

Mr. President, it is a fact, now very clear, that if 
this Government and Union be saved by anything 
that is done here, it must be done by Senators 
on the other side of the Chamber. They have 
had it in their power from the beginning of the 
session, by adopting amendments to the Consti- 
tution, to save this Union from dissolution. By 
an examinalionof the votes given in the committee I 
of thirteen, it will be found that all the other mem- 
bers of the coinmittee, save the Republicans, could 
at any time have made a unanimous report, rec- 1 
ommending constitutional amendments for the | 
consideration of the Senate. Indeed, the entire' 
committee, except the Republicans, voted for all 
the propositions of my colleague, with the ex- 
ception of two Senators, who voted against the 
first article; but it was well known in the com- 
mittee that the first article would have been ac- 
cepted by those two gentlemen, had the Repub- 
lican members of the committee chosen to take 
it. It was declared by the distinguished Senator 
from Georgia, now absent, [Mr. Toombs,] on this 
floor, that he would have taken it; and he believed 
it would be satisfactory to nine tenths of thir peo- 
ple of Georgfa. So then, if we do anything to 
save this Government, it must come from that 
Bide of the Chamber. It has been declared by 



Senators representing every party and section on 
this side, that they are ready and willing to go for 
amendments that will be satisfactory to the south- 
ern people. And you alone. Senators on the other 
side of the Chamber, oppose them. 

If this Union should be destroyed, in conse- 
quenceofconstitutioiial guarantees not being given 
that would be just and satisfactory to the people 
of the South, you alone will be responsible to the 
country and to the world; for it is manifest that 
there has been no contrariety of opinion on this 
side of the Chamber, that could not have been at 
any time reconciled. 

I have said,Senators,as much as I designed to 
say upon the propositions of my colleague. There 
is one other subject about which I will say a few 
words, and that is this question of coercion, about 
which so much has been said. I shall not attempt 
to discuss the right of a State to secede. That 
proposition has been elaborately discussed, pro 
and con., in this Chamber. I see no necessity now 
for discussing that abstract question. We are 
surrounded by facts that are eminently pi-actical. 
Hold wiiat you will in theory, we know that five 
of the States of this Union have foriTially passed 
oi-dinances withdrawing from it, and that they are 
prepared to maintain by arms, if the issue should 
be forced upon them, the position they have as- 
sumed; and we know that other States, at least 
two, will quickly follow them. We must deal with 
the fact as it is. I do not believe thai, uiider the 
Constitution of the United States, we have any 
right to make war upon a State. We find, by 
reference to the proceedings of the convention that 
framed the Constitution, that it was proposed to 
give that power, and it was denied. In the debates 
on the Federal Constitution, (Madison Papers, 
volume five, page 1.39:) 

'•The last cl;iu'sc of the .sixth resolution,' aulliorizingan 
exertion of the lorce ol" the whole ai;aiM>t a de|lnqui-nt 
State.' came next in consideration. 

'• Mr. Madison observed, lliai the more he reflected on the 
use of force, till! more he tlmilitid the praclicaliiliiy, the 
justice, and the efficacy of it, when applied to people col- 
lectively, and not individually. A uiiUui ol the Slates con- 
taining such an ln<!redieiit see d to provide lor it.» own 

destruction. The use of force a^iUnst a State would look 
niori' like a declaration of war than an inflictifMi of puiiisli- 
menl, and wmild prohahly h • con-ldered liy the piirty at- 
tacked as a dissolution of all previous conip icts liy which 
it micht lie hound. He hoped that such a hy.-tem would be 
framed its niiKlit render this rccMmrce unnecessary, nnd 
moved that the clause be postponed, 'this motion was 
agreed to, ncin. con." 

Mr. Ellsworth, upon the same subject, said: 

" I am for coercion liy law— that eoeri'ion wliieh acta 
only upon dehnnu Mit individuals. This Constitution does 
not aileinpi to coerce Hovereign bodies— States— In llieir 
political capacity. No coercion is applicable to mcli bodies 
hut that of an armed force. |f we should attempt to exe- 
cute the laws of the l/nion by sending an armed force 



15 



against a delinquent State, it would involve the good and 
bad, the innocent and pnilty, in tlie same calamity."— 
Elliot's Debates^ vol. 2, p. 197. 

Alexander Hainilton snid: 

" Tt has been observed, to coerce the States is one of the 
maddest [projects tlial was ever devised. A failiireol com- 
pliance will never be confined to a single Stiite. 'J'liis being 
the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war.' 
Suppose Massachusetts, or any large State, should refuse, 
and Congress should attempt to coinpel them : would they ; 
not have influi-nce to procure assistance, especially from ' 
those States which are in the same situation as themselves.-' i 
What picture does this idea present to our view? A com- 
plying State at war with a non complying State ; Congress 
marching the troops of one State into the bosom of another; 
this State collecting auxiliaries, and forming, psrhap-, a i 
m.ajority against its Federal liead. Here is a naiion at war 
with itself. Can any reasonable man be well disposed to- 
ward a Government which makes war and carnage the 
only means of supporting itself— a Government that can 
exist only by the sword .' Every such war must involve the 
Innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should 
be sufficient to d ispose every peaceable citizen against such 
a Government." — Elliot's Debates, vol. 2, p. 233. 

Mr. Mason, and otlierdistingui.shed gentlemen 
in that convention, uttered similar views. Gen- 
eral Jackson has been quoted as authority by 
those who advocate coercion. In his farewell 
address he said: 

"The Constitution cannot be maintained, nor the Union 
preserved, in opposition to public feeling, by the mere ex- 
ertion of the coercive power confided in the central Gov 
ernment. The foundations must be lad in the affections 
of the people, in the security it gives to life, liberty, char- 
acter, and property, in every quarter of the country." 

This Government, if preserved, must be main- 
tained upon the principle clearly and distinctly 
enunciated by General Jackson in the clause of 
his farewell address which I have just read. It 
is a Union that depends upon the consent of the 
people governed. It can only be held together by 
a faithful observance by all the States of the re- 
quirements of the Constitution, mutual interest 
and forbearance, and the ties of fraternity. 

You speak, Senators, of executing the laws. I 
am as much in favor of executing the laws as any 
Senator in this Chamber. The laws ought to be 
honestly and faithfully executed. Laws can be 
executed against individuals, but not against sov- 
ereign States. How is it possible that you can 
execute the laws when you have no civil officer 
in the seceding States.' You can only constitu- 
tionally and lawfully apply force in aid of the civil 
authority. You have no judges, you have no 
marshals, you have no civil officers in those States. 
Is there a citizen of one of the seceding States who 
acknowledges the jurisdiction of the United Slates.' 
I doubt if there be one. 

How, then, can you execute the laws there.' 
If you resort to force, without that force being 
called in aid of the civil authority, it would be 
■war; war, of itself, is equivalent to dissolution. 
Suppose twenty-eight States were to undertake, 



by force, to compel the five seceding States to re- 
main in the Union and to acknowledge and sub- 
mit to the jurisdiction of the United States: what 
would be the result.' When you had accomplished 
everything you could expect from the Army and 
Navy — bombarded and destroyed their cities, laid 
waste their fields, slaughtered their people, over- 
run and conquered them — would you, by that 
means, have preserved the Union.' jNo; you would 
have placed it beyond the probability of recon- 
struction. So far from a constitutional Union of 
thirty-three free sovereign States, you would have 
twenty-eight States and five conquered provinces. 
Itismadness, worse than madness, to think of pre- 
serving this Union by force. It cannot be done. 
The real friends of the Union do not desire 
coercion. Allow me to tell you that the coercion 
of a sovereign State is war. War, if attempted, 
will result in permanent dissolution; it cannot 
and will not result otherwise. War commenced 
and prosecuted against one State would very soon 
involve every State in the Union in civil war. 
States united by similarity of institutions would 
soon unite to repel aggression. 

I believe that South Carolina has acted hastily, 
imprudently, and unwisely. It would have been 
much better for her to have had a conference with 
her sister States of the South, and let them have 
made a united demand upon the North for consti- 
tutional guarantees; and in the event they were 
refused, let all the southern States have linked 
their shields together, and made common cause. 
That, in my judgment, would have been much the 
better and wiser policy. She chose, however, to 
act otherwise. 

I ask Senators on the other side of the Cham- 
ber, who so ardently demand the execution of the 
laws, if many of their States are in a condition to 
arraign a sister State for the non-execution of the 
laws, when the fact is, that you have laws on 
your statute-books nullifying constitutional laws 
of Congress made to protect the properly of the 
people of the southern States.' You who live 
upon broken faith should be the last to speak of 
employing force against the seceding States of 
the South. 

I have heard the great strength of the northern 
section of this Confederacy boasted of; we have 
heard of eighteen million conquering nine mil- 
lion. I admit that the northern portion of this 
Confederacy has had a wonderful growth; it 
has had great prosperity, and in that prosperity, 
I, in common, I trust, with every man in the Re- 




public, rejoice. The South, loo, has had an as- 
tonishing growth and very great prosperity. The 
strength, the prosperity , and the power of the two 
sections furnish, to my mind, a conclusive reason 
why we should have no war. Our strength, our 
wealth, our prosperity, were not caused by war; 
it was the arts of peace that crowned the two 
sections of this great country with such surpris- 
ing prosperity. Both sections have made unpar- 
alleled advancement in wealth, population, and 
in all the arts of peace that constitute a nation's 
greatness. In 1790 the population of the two sec- 
tions was about equal. Our people then numbered 
a little less than four million. The population of 
each section was about one million nine hundred 
thousand. By the census just now being com- 
pleted, I suppose the South will have twelve and 
the North nineteen million people. SenaUors, it is 
impossible that either section could overrun or 
conquer the other. If you resort to coercion and 
war, what will be the result? You would have a 
long, exhausting civil war, and after it you would 
settle all your difficulties by negotiation. If we 
have to separate, in God's name let us part in 
peace. I trust, however, that all our difficulties 
may be properly and honorably adjusted, aad that 
this Union may last for hundreds of years to come. 
The State I have the honor in part to represent, 
has ever been true and loyal to the Constitution 
and the Union. Her people, of all political parties, 
most heartily desire that the constitutional Union 
of our fathers may be preserved. She justly ap- 
preciates the value of the Union and the bless- 
ings it has conferred. She has, in the councils of 
the common country, and on the battle-field, ex- 
hibited her devotion to the whole country. She 
claims that the Constitution shall be executed in 
the spirit in which our fathers gave it to us. She 
demands her equality of rights under the Consti- 
tution; her equality of rights in the common ter- 
ritories; and that Federal laws made for the jiro- 
tection of tlie property of her citizens shall be 
faithfully executed. She asks nothing that is not 
right; she will submit to notliing that is wrong. 
She desires a fair, honorable, and just settlement 
of the vexed questions that so fearfully agitate 
the country, by full and explicit constitutional 



v-'-'noKtbli 



16 ""■"""iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii „, „„ 

011 895 729 5 

guarantees — guarantees that will settle perma- 
nently and forever the questions in dispute, and 
thus secure and transmit the bles.sings of constitu- 
tional liberty, and the Government given us by our 
illustrious ancestors, to generations yet unborn. 
Senators, the propositions presented by my 
colleague, with the amendments I have projjosed, 
which meet his approval, should, in my judgment, 
be satisfactory to the people of both sections of 
this Union. I believe they are equitable and just 
to every section of the country; and had they 
been promptly conceded by the North, 1 have no 
doubt that they would have arrested the cur- 
rent of events, and saved the Union from dissolu- 
tion, and restored peace, harmony, and prosper- 
ity to the couutry. I hope they may be adopted, 
and reunite a divided people. By their adoption 
the North loses nothing, the South gains security, 
and that protection which it is the duty of a com- 
mon Government to extend to person and prop- 
erty. My colleague spoke most truly when he 
said to Republican Senators that their yielding to 
the South these constitutional guarantees would 
be the cheapest price ever paid for so great a 
blessing as this constitutional Union. I feel con- 
fident that Kentucky would be satisfied with these 
constitutional guarantees. I do not believe she 
will or ought to be satisfied with less. 

I have been often asked what Kentucky will do 
in the event of a refusal on the part of the North 
to yield the guarantees she asks. Allow me to 
say that I am not authorized to speak for Ken- 
tucky. She has convened her Legislature in ex- 
traordinary session, to consider the condition of 
the country. In a very short time her chosen rep- 
resentatives will make known her position. I 
■ have every confidence that she will meet this cri- 
1 sis, and that she will act in the midst of the great 
events by which she is surrounded, in a manner 
' becoming the honor and the dignity of a brave 
people, and the people of a free sovereign State, 
who know their rights, and, knowing, dare main- 
tain them. When the position of Kentucky shall 
be thus taken; when her sovereign will shall be 
legitimately made Jtnown, whether it be accoid- 
1 ing to my personal judgment or not, I, as a true 
land a loyal son, will obey her high behests. 



